From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The proposed redirect won't work because the subject is not mentioned in the target page. Sandstein 07:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Routine of Nepal banda

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Routine of Nepal banda (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Social Media Page which is not a media organization of Nepal and has no Online publication or offline papers. Most of the sources are connected with Balen and a single event as the page was promoting Balen Shah political campaigning and other sources looks like advertisement as the page is involved in social media promotion itself. "So, It clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (media). DIVINE ( talk) 13:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Just reiterating my delete vote, despite Tulsi's attempt to pass this off as notable yet again. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Ah, your new signature looks good, green green greenery everywhere, but why changed the name? I like PRAXIDICAE one. hehe.. —  Tulsi  24x7 03:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Routine of Nepal Banda. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 15:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Possible strongest keep - I am not able to relate with this AFD reason and delete comment above, these are purely baseless/pointless reasons mentioned for deletion. Firstly, this topic is definitely notable per notability guideline of Wikipedia, WP:COMPANY. And, Wikipedia:Notability (media) is not one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and it is not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Secondly, the sources listed on the article are categorized as A or A+ (the possible highest rank) by Press Council Nepal as for reliability, providing factual information and based on other things. You may take a look at User:Usedtobecool/PSN by Usedtobecool which clearly guides you about which sources of Nepal states possible reliability and notability for Wikipedia. Taken this into consideration, I disagree with Praxidicae over here. I think she is not familiar with Nepalese sources and news media. As far as previous AFD is concerned, now it meets the notability criteria, WP:NORG/ WP:COMPANY as the topic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. It meets WP:ORGDEPTH and sufficiently establish notability. RONB is so popular among Nepalis. Not based on its popularity, but based on our guideline WP:COMPANY I strongly advice to keep this article. Thank you for your understanding. —  Tulsi  24x7 03:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Both are correct. Topic is notable (or close) but the article is too spammy. Specifically, what's notable is the RONB brand (social media pages/accounts). There is enough significant coverage for a GNG pass. But the "media company" that the Wikipedia articles that crop up write about has little to no coverage, and fails GNG, let alone NORG. It should be deleted unless it is rewritten to be about the former, and with a NPOV. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 03:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    WP:ATD, if the article needs editing, it needs editing. The topic is notable so it should be kept. Kind regards, —  Tulsi  24x7 08:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    The article needs complete rewriting and you have for some reason created it at the wrong title (why?). So, there is in fact nothing to be lost by deleting it. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 13:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    Are you kidding me? nothing to be lost by deleting it? It would take away my given "time" (the most valuable thing as read in my primary school) 7 days (168 hours); my research for creating this article, to look for sources and information, the time should be valued. I could have created 7 more articles. Also, I don't think that I have created it at the wrong title, see its Facebook page - "Routine of Nepal banda" is what I have written as the title of the page which is per our policy recognizability. For a second, its wrong then we can easily move a page. It doesn't need NASA technology to do that. The AFD page and deletion policy itself suggests to look for alternatives rather than deleting the page. I don't see any valid grounds for deletion. The topic is notable and has reliable sources in it. It just need improvements a bit which I tried my best to give it. Still you think it need rewrite then fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. —  Tulsi  24x7 16:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    We're discussing if the topic is notable in the first place, this doesn't appear to be based on our guidelines. The amount of time you spend is commendable, but irrelevant to the discussion here. We can't keep everything that pops up on wiki; if it's notable, it will be kept. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
    To be perfectly honest, I would rewrite it, if nothing else, to stop this creation/deletion cycle, if I could be sure you were not going to get paid for my efforts.
    What I was saying in my original comment is that if the article gets rewritten before this AFD closes to be about the social media page/account, giving due weight to both the positive and the negative, I would !vote to keep it. I can only suggest it here; doing it myself, right now, would essentially be hijacking the article since I would be changing everything about it. Usedtobecool  ☎️ 01:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment we do this wiki thing for free, and anything is at risk of deletion. The article can be changed, upgraded or re-written at anytime. It can be frustrating, but such is the wiki. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete agree, non-notable and very spammy. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable, the subject of the article is more popular as a social media page on sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram rather than a reliable media house. The subject does not seem notable enough. Wallflowernepal ( talk) 18:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails our NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 10:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have re-written this article; contents more focused as a Facebook page (and not as a media company) which is what the topic multiple RS indicate. So, I request everyone to give it a check once again and has it passed through General notability guideline. The topic has enough sources to demonstrate notability and I feel deleting would be not fair just because contents in the article were not good. Kind regards, —  Tulsi  24x7 04:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Still a promotional page as they always encourage paid advertising, can't end the discussion when it's almost over, and must respect user votes. DIVINE ( talk) 17:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Editors are encouraged to edit the article in order address the shortcomings identified at AfD. But I don't understand the purpose of your changes as it seems to now ignore the modern incarnation. Can you explain? For example the first version of the page said it was a news agency and yes, the new version mentions it was registered as such also but in the lede only refers to it as a FB page - but that isn't true is it? The older page mentioned its followers on Insta and Twitter so ... its actually not just a FB page is it? I can see that you might have thought that editing the page to remove information might work but for me, the new version is now misleading and does not reflect the current incarnation of this brand. HighKing ++ 18:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • @ HighKing: You're right. That's not just a FB page. Its social media pages/accounts (FB, Insta, Twitter) are popular and notable. There's little sources which mention it as a media company/news media. Per above delete comments including yours as well the topic fails notability to mention it as a company. So, I thought to rewrite and more focused as a FB page because mostly the sources says it as a FB page which is how it got started in 2011. But now, its a registered media company. Please advise how it can be improved. I am open to comments for article improvement. Kind regards, —  Tulsi  24x7 03:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please note per WP:DISCUSSAFD: The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. I don't have anything more to say, if everyone want deletion then go for it, but I would still disagree because the topic has enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. —  Tulsi  24x7 03:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of newspapers in Nepal#Online-only. RONB is a popular news dissimiating organization (perhaps run by 1 or 2 person). However, it is definately not a dedicated news agency, for instance check their website which has not been updated since a month- not a typical behaviour of a news organization. Best! nirmal ( talk) 14:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Routine_of_Nepal_banda&oldid=1108107039"